Rona Ambrose, Interim Conservative Leader and MP for Sturgeon River — Parkland, in Question Period on January 27, 2016

The Kurdish government has been critical of Canada’s decision to withdraw its fighter jets. But other major allies in the fight have been agreeable (if vague) about the change, and at least one ally, the United States, has approved.

FactsCan Score: Misleading

During the election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged to pull Canada’s six CF-18 fighter jets from the bombing missions against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. Canada’s mandate for the mission will expire on March 31, but Trudeau announced the jets would be withdrawn by February 22.

Critics, including themother of one of six Canadians killed in a terrorist attack in Burkina Faso in January, are not happy with Trudeau’s decision. The Conservatives characterize it as “stepping back” from Canada’s responsibilities to its allies.

During Question Period, Rona Ambrose, leader of the opposition, said, “our allies have … been clear that Canada should leave our CF-18s in the fight” against Islamic State.

James Bezan, opposition defence critic,echoed Ambrose, adding that, “the decision to withdraw Canada’s CF-18s is seen by our allies as stepping back, rather than standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them.”

For his part, Trudeausaid no leader has told him to keep the CF-18s in place.

But what have Canada’s allies actually said?

Aloud, not a whole lot. There are no clear statements of disagreement or displeasure.

After the Canadian election in October, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, was asked if the United States wanted Canada to keep its CF-18s in the anti-Islamic State coalition. “We are certainly hoping that they’ll continue to play that important role that they’ve played thus far,” heresponded.

When the foreign ministers of the United States, Canada and Mexico met in Quebec on January 29, 2016, John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, responded to another question on Trudeau’s decision. “While [Canada] may have made a choice with respect to one particular component of that [anti-Islamic State] effort, that does not reflect on the overall commitment or the capacity to contribute significantly to the road ahead,” hesaid.

And when Trudeau met with French President François Hollande before the United Nations climate talks in Paris last November, Hollandesaid that although “we also have to act militarily,” each country should contribute “within their own means.”

The language used by allies continued to be agreeable even after Trudeau announced the details of Canada’s mission change in early February.

Barack Obama “welcomed Canada’s current and new contributions to coalition efforts,” according to a White House press release on a phone call between the president and Trudeau. Bruce Heyman,the US ambassador to Canada,said the Liberal’s plans are “in line with the Coalition’s current needs” and he is “pleased to hear Canada’s announcement.”

Pentagon spokesperson Peter Cooksaid,“the Canadian announcement is the kind of response the (defence) secretary’s been looking for from coalition members as the United States and coalition partners push to accelerate the campaign against [Islamic State].” Canada’s response, in other words, is an example for others.

More recently, a US general said he was “kind of sad” to see the fighter jets go, but it was an unofficial statement.

Canada’s Kurdish allies however, have previously expressed displeasure with Trudeau’s plans to withdraw the fighter jets. In an interview last October with Rudaw, an Iraq-based news website, the chief of staff for the Kurdish Regional Government’s Peshmerga Ministry described what was then the proposed termination of the mission as “bad news.”

Canada was not invited to a January 2016 meeting between the defence ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands. Ashley Carter, the US defence secretary,said in a speech that the meeting would involve the “six nations playing a significant role in both the group and air components” in the campaign. There would be no space for “free riders,” he added.

The Conservatives called it a snub. “It’s obvious when you are not a partner, a full partner, you don’t get invited to the table,” Ambrose said.

But with no link to Canada’s changing mission provided by the organizer, the United States, the meeting without Canada cannot be called a clear statement on the CF-18s.

It’s true that at least one ally criticized Canada’s plans for its fighter jets, but other major coalition members have said nothing at all, have given ambiguous statements, or have praised the new strategy. It is misleading then, to claim that Canada’s allies are “clear” that the CF-18s should remain in the fight.